Honda CR-Z vs. Honda CRX

VanillaSky wrote: I felt the cockpit was very driver friendly. Everything was within reach. It sort of had me thinking about the David Bowie song "Space Oddity" with the ultra modern displays and the massive amounts of information being fed to me, the feel was more space ship than car. Major Tom would be impressed.

Gonna disagree with you here. I guess it falls under a personal taste issue. Take the fuel economy displays. It has 1. a color change background color (green = driving like a hippie, blue = normal, red = F1 is not going to notice your mad skills, knock it off) 2. A sliding graph of the currently calculated MPG - which slides over to 100mpg+ each time you put on the brakes and plummets like real estate values (too soon?) when you dare use the gas. AND 3. A clunky, Atari-quality copy of the "drive nice, make the trees grow" display that other cars use. And that's just one example. Personally, I'd rather have nice, simple displays and $1,500 off the sticker price, thank you.

On my end, I sort of like the gauge package. I guess I mentally file it under perceived value. The car has a lot of technology that other cars don't have, so it needs to adjust the user interface to reflect its uniqueness. I have no issue with that, especially since all of the gauges are easy to read, sensible and user friendly.

And when you think about it, there's probably no real money to be saved with a conventional display. The on board computers are monitoring those functions anyway, all the dash does is provides a readout for stuff the computer is already looking at.Honestly, a full LCD dash like the Lexus LF-A will probably be the standard before too long, as it will be easier and cheaper to produce than dials and needles. Then you will have people hacking the displays and creating custom "skins" like a gas gauge where some girls boobs show how much gas you have left (note to self: fund development of gas gauge boob thing).

Anyway, peoples like or dislike of the CR-Z seems to be highly tied to expectations, and I think these expectations have been romanticized by just how good the original CRXs were. Well, maybe not how good they were, but how much better they were than anything else at the time. The CR-Z is a darn good car, but it swims in a sea that's way more full of good cars than it was when the first CRXs were introduced.

jg

JG - I understand what you're saying. I guess I'm basing my assumption that money could actually be saved off the purchase price based on the typical cost of tricked out displays as "option packages" in other cars. I guess I've always assumed there was at least some actual cost there, but maybe its just a profit generator for the manufacturer. I guess reading through the comments, the main split centers around what people are hoping to get out of the car.
I'll be honest enough to say I was hoping for as close to the original CRX as possible. In that sense, the complexity (and possibly, cost) associated with a lot of the bells and whistles on this car is a negative. For others, who are looking for the "new, improved, updated" CRX, this may actually be a positive. I think Honda has, perhaps wisely, decided that the CR-Z is most appropriately targeted towards technology friendly, single, 20-somethings, for whom a constant stream of multi-source information (useful or not) is comfortable. For me, its an annoying and unnecessary distraction. And please don't misunderstand me, I don't hate the car. Its just probably not what I'm looking for.

kazoospec wrote: I'll be honest enough to say I was hoping for as close to the original CRX as possible.

It's interesting how this means different things to different people. To drive them back to back, you realize that manufacturers may be making cars "better" these days, but better cars don't automatically mean a better driving experience.

The CRX is the perfect example of a car that's more than the sum of its parts. If you look at the numbers, an '88 CRX Si was not particularly fast or agile, but being behind the wheel tells a completely different story. I think that's where some of the CR-Z angst lies. Some folks want to stack the numbers of the CR-Z—which is all they have to go on—against the happiness they felt when they drove a CRX. Honda's in the unenviable position of replacing a beloved cult leader. I'm reminded on the Bon Scott vs. Brian Johnson arguments I have with my wife periodically.

It will be fascinating to see how opinions of the CR-Z change over time, as more cars get out there and the initial shock wears off.

jg

JG Pasterjak wrote: Anyway, peoples like or dislike of the CR-Z seems to be highly tied to expectations, and I think these expectations have been romanticized by just how good the original CRXs were. Well, maybe not how good they were, but how much better they were than anything else at the time. The CR-Z is a darn good car, but it swims in a sea that's way more full of good cars than it was when the first CRXs were introduced.

This is true. I keenly remember how the first year of the Si had specs so similar to the leading GT car of the day, the Nissan 300ZX. Comparisons to the benchmarks of today will be difficult. The bars have moved.

Regarding the expectations of the CRZ to the what the CRX did, it's not just versus one model variant of the CRX during it's 8 year development cycle. The first CRZ out of the box is being compared to all of them. Si performance, HF economy, DX affordability.

Instead of three cars, we get one car with three buttons. Think of the SPORT, NORM and ECON mode buttons on the CRZ dash as "Si", "DX", and "HF".

There's a bit of nostalgia engineered into this car. Whether or not it will work in the marketplace remains to be seen.

kazoospec wrote:

VanillaSky wrote: I felt the cockpit was very driver friendly. Everything was within reach. It sort of had me thinking about the David Bowie song "Space Oddity" with the ultra modern displays and the massive amounts of information being fed to me, the feel was more space ship than car. Major Tom would be impressed.

Gonna disagree with you here. I guess it falls under a personal taste issue. Take the fuel economy displays. It has 1. a color change background color (green = driving like a hippie, blue = normal, red = F1 is not going to notice your mad skills, knock it off) 2. A sliding graph of the currently calculated MPG - which slides over to 100mpg+ each time you put on the brakes and plummets like real estate values (too soon?) when you dare use the gas. AND 3. A clunky, Atari-quality copy of the "drive nice, make the trees grow" display that other cars use. And that's just one example. Personally, I'd rather have nice, simple displays and $1,500 off the sticker price, thank you.

agree. Not to mention all the morons out there on their cell phones don't need to be staring at all the goofy econo-gauges on their dash in an effort to save the planet.

They need to be looking at the freakin road!

Funny how it's illegal to have a DVD player in the dash playing a movie or PS2 game while you're driving, but it's ok to "make the tree grow" while staring at your gauge display in rush hour traffic.

Funny how it's illegal to have a DVD player in the dash playing a movie or PS2 game while you're driving, but it's ok to "make the tree grow" while staring at your gauge display in rush hour traffic.

That's an interesting point.

Regarding the gauges, my Insight (and s2000s at about the same time) has an lcd gauge cluster and it's one of my favorite things about the car. Not because it makes it special, just because it is nicer. I like looking at it. Since gauge clusters are a part of the interior you spend a good amount of time looking at, it makes sense to make it attractive or stylistically or informationally interesting. Mine has the horizontal MPG gauge too and it does move quickly when you hit the gas (and sometimes when you dont.. wacky drive-by-wire), but its not changing any faster than the engine vacuum does when you hit the gas. Keep in mind you are mostly looking at a glorified vacuum gauge with MPG numbers on the scale. Engine vacuum, RPM, and wheel speed is pretty much all they need to know to spit out a pretty good mpg number.

IDK why people need a "real-time" mpg gauge anyhow. I always thought it was pretty simple to know what kind of mileage you're achieving: - If you are lugging around at low rpms, leaving every stoplight as slow as possible, short shifting, and going 62mpg on the highway....you're doing about as good as you can. - If you are doing the opposite, your mileage is going to be on the bad side - Air up your tires and turn the A/C of for better mileage - And so on.

Or just drive the way you want to drive, and live with the mileage you get.

And I agree....gauge clusters should be aesthetically stylish and give you the information you REALLY need when driving: speed, rpms, fuel level, and temp. Hence (and yes, the boost gauge is gratuitous)

Sorry, this is a bump from the dead.

I have seen a few CR-Zs in person driving by, and have found their looks striking in a good way. However, I saw one up close at the Jacksonville car show tonight, and it really impressed me. For one thing, it was a bare bones model; zero options added, and it had everything I would want. I loved the interior and the cloth seats felt great and didn't look cheap.

Mitch buddy. Didn't you get the memo? We are supposed to hate the CR-Z. It is dumb, overweight, and has zero redeeming value. Duh.

How silly of me. I almost forgot my nostalgia for the car that began production four years before I was born.

I've been looking at them pretty closely during my car search. Very comfy seats, lots of features, and I love the way the instrument panel looks. If I hadn't gotten a deal on a Miata, there'd probably be a Milano Red CR-Z EX (without Nav) in my driveway right nowl

Funny you should say that. I could easily have bought a miata for the price i paid for my Insight (which weighs and accelerates about the same as an early base model CRX) and it didnt even cross my mind. I dont like NA miatas for the driving i do, and NCs, though wonderful, were way out of the price range. Anyway, glad to see you mention cross-shopping those models and deciding for yourself on the merits of them.

My fiancee doesnt like my insight much at all, but she txtd me yesterday and said she got close to a CR-Z and really likes it ( i do too). She also followed me somewhere and said my insight looks crazy fast as long as im taking turns (crazy fast)..

Am I the only one who would rather have the Volkswagen GTD? I really wish there were more diesel hot hatches.

MrBenjamonkey wrote: Am I the only one who would rather have the Volkswagen GTD? I really wish there were more diesel hot hatches.

A GTD would be wonderful. A WRX with Subaru's upcoming diesel boxer would also be quite cool. As would a Mazdaspeed3 with a SkyD engine.

Or if BMW would give it a shot here, the 120d hatch would be perfect for me.

I'm still squarely in the "kindof somewhat neat-ish car" camp, but i berkeleying HATE the way it looks so much i wouldn't consider being caught inside one.

I just looked at one very closely today at the cleveland auto show. I was impressed with the interior design and comfort. Nothing there to turnme off at all. I'd like to drive one now.

Hopefully, I am going to test drive one not to far from now.